On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 11:20:27PM +0900, - Edwin - wrote:
:
: On 2003.11.8, at 20:32 Asia/Tokyo, Eugene Lee wrote:
:
: >On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:26:39PM +0900, - Edwin - wrote:
: >:
: >: Well, I'm sure there's a very good reason why the dictionary
: >: I quoted called it "simplified kanji".
: >
: >I disagree with the term "simplified kanji".
: >
[...]
: >
: > The kana may have been
: >derived from kanji and evolved over the centuries, but they are no
: >longer kanji in the sense that they carry any intrinsic meaning by
: >themselves.
:
: ?? Who said that they are kanji?
Edwin, you quoted the American Heritage Dictionary:
> kana: (quoted from the American Heritage Dictionary)
> "1. Japanese syllabic writing. The characters are simplified kanji
http://www.phparch.com/mailinglists/msg.php?a=729121&s=japanese+character&p=&g=
I am simply explaning that part of the dictionary definition is incorrect.
The statement above, "The characters are simplified kanji", is equal to
the statement, "kana are simplified kanji". The ISA relationship between
kana and kanji is false and does not exist.
However, I do agree without question that kana evolved from kanji.
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
